Has anyone read Jimmy Carter's book that came out very recently? I haven't.

Seems like Mr Carter is not very happy with the reviews. Here's Mr President defending his book.

Israel, Palestine, peace and apartheid


Americans need to know the facts about the abominable oppression of the Palestinians

Jimmy Carter
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations - but not in the United States. For the past 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticise policies of the Israeli government is due to the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defence of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.

What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the US exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

My new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status. It is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.

Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organisations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions". A former Carter Centre fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent". Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine, to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what black people lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonise choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the casualties on both sides.

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbours.

Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.

· Jimmy Carter was US president from 1977-81. His book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid was published last month. This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in the Los Angeles Times

who cares about jimmy carter!
the palestinians' llife is not worth a dime. in fact, if they allll die off, all the better for israel.
the pain in the neck will be gone...no longer have to deal with this stupid roadblock "peace process".......whatever.

Ifc123, your comments aren't wort a dime either. and u lines reflect your stupidy and insensitivity regarding the matter being discussed.

Why does Palestine matter? Simply put, two words: Sept 11th. That day proved that America's shores are not immune from the affects of conflicts in far-flung areas of the world. If the US choses to ignore the Palestinians, it will do so at its own peril.

My 2 cents.

i couldn't disagree.

Yes, its all about 9/11.

After the dreadful events of 9/11, the US embarked on a series of misadventures. Now this has for the first time sowed the seeds of Pan-Arabian nationalism and the issue of Palestine is at the core of this emerging/nascent Arab nationalism. As long as this issue is not solved, the Middle East is not going to stabilize. And given the vast reserves of oil, the inetrtwining of Arabian nationalism with Anti Americanism, this issue of Israel Palestine has to be solved. This is what Mr. Carter is hinting at, if I understand it correctly.

As always, please feel free to correct me.

tooo bad you did not pick up that i was being sarcastic....
as for palestinians, they go through a 9/11 everyday.i hate with a passion atrocities committed against the palestinians and the arab world in general. just leave the damn people alone!! may be the oil in land of the prophet was a curse after all!
first israel steals land from them and then goes around in am ission to wipe off the whole race...as$es.
waht i said above relfects how most people in the US feel....and why it is impossible and will remain so for a long long time for US and its citizens to actually critisize its practically, 51st state, Israel, and to recognize palestinians' rights for self-determination.

damn right, isolated freak i will correct you.
"the seeds of pan-arab nationalism?!" and "this emerging/nascent Arab nationalism'
learn some history arerre yarr! pan-Arab nationalist sentiments have been existing in the region for a long long time....it shaped middle east's modern history. and pan-arabist might lead to a
with the different conservative monarcheis and goverments with iraq anmovement proved to be a failure a few decades ago...and some may still be aspring for a unified arab state, that will not be happening.and besdies, the problems in the region are so intricate and sooo freakinggg complex that no way will a condition be created,any time in the near future for a united arab state...besides, wont' the US practially go outttt of its way to prevent the creation of a uniffied arab state??!

and i do not think mr. carter (although i have not read the book) talks about pan arab nationalism. if he does, and thinks "seeds" are being sowed after the "misadventures" of the US, then he is wayyyy offff the mark...

oops..
i think i butchered that paragrpah makes no sense. never mind.

On that day, GOD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river the Euphrates. The land of the Kenites, Kenizites, Kadmonites; the Hittites, Perizzites, Refaim; the Emorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites." - Genesis 15:18-21

as mentioned above, the land of israel (including present day west-bank & gaza collectively known as palestine) was promised to the jews by GOD.

the prophecies mentioned in the holy boook has now come true with the creation of israel, the holy land for the GOD's chosen race.

gaza was under egyptian control n west bank was under syrian control before the nation of israel was created in 1948.

throughout history, there never was a free nation of palestine ever

the palestinian issue has been created by god hating, anti-semitic, immoral atheists n baby killing terrorist apologists.

to those who r fiting for free palestine against the GOD's wishes, a simple message:

GOD will make u rot in hell forever!

HAPPY HANUKKAH

View/Share this post only

jews claim they ahve the right to israel, but arab palestinians have been living there 1300 freakin years...that is like the indians of america saying 'screw you white people, we have been living in this territory for thousdands of years, it is promised to us in our holy book...look here it is...and so we are taking this land back from you although you have been living here for about 500 years." and then forcing everbody to abandon thier homes and lands.
if israel thinks it will be able to exist peacefully without every recognizing palestinian rights, then that woudl be a delusion. its short history of about 50 years has been filled wiht strife,violence, hatred, massacares...from both sides.

Dear LFC,

Thanks for correcting me.

Now let me clarify why I came up with such a misguided errornous analysis.

As far as I knew, i.e., before I read your post that the modern Middle East always lacked the Pan-Arabian Nationalism similar to Bolivar(-ism) of South America. The region was always divided along the tribal and religious lines, and after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the British (Kitchner, Churchill, Spikes) etc., the French (Picot) tried to carve out the territories for their own puppet regimes, and pitted one tribe against the other to achieve their own, what they tremed at that time, national interests. Before the creation of Israel, no Arab tribes were united, they fought with each other and/or among their own tribes. There was no stability to speak of, and in some sense, no desire to get rid off of the foreign intervention.

After the Second World War and after founding of the modern state of Israel, some Arab governmnets decided to form an alliance and promote Pan-Arabian nationalism for example Sadat ( or is it Nasseer?-) but it failed miserabely. Afetr Israel's victory in the 6 days war, this idea died down.

However, things are changing now. People are tired of their corrupt, puppet governmnets, instability etc. and the religion has taken over the tribal differences. Now its one religion vs the other, Islam vs Judiasm. In some sense, Israel's misadventures and misguided policies vis-a-vis the arabs also play an important part in rising anti semitism in the region. And enter America with its mighty power, Arabs vs. the US. The issue of Palestine was important for some religious leaders or some corrupt dictators in the region to rally the public support behind them in the past and the support to Palestine was mostly at the political level, but like I said above things are changing now. It has become an issue between the two (OK three) religions involved and given the development in information technology, internet, Al Zazeera, regional newspapers etc. the idea of nationalism -- Pan Arabian Nationalism-- of "us" vs. "them" is developing, and for the majority Arabs, America is too far and too powerful, so the anger is directed against Israel because many people are not mistaken in their belief that Israeli misadventures are the result of the US military and political backing. And in the long run, or maybe in the short, the anger will be (more and more) directed against the US. And in my opinion, this is what Mr. Carter is hinting at.

Like I said in my very first post to this thread, I haven't read his book yet. My analysis is based on what he has been saying these days.

Once again, I am very happy that you took your time to read my post and correct me. Now I will refrain from making misguided judgements and start learning the history of modern middle east right away. Have you any suggestion for good books?

You have a good one.

I don't think 9/11 was the turning point in US' policy on the Middle East. The desire to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was always there, albeit the hard questions remained on the issue of HOW. Stable Middles East was always seen as a key US interest by almost every US administration since the Palestinian conflict took a huge turn for the worst after the creation of Israel in 1947. Therefore, we can see that US has always played a key role in every step towards possible peace in the region.

In recent times, major US efforts to bring peace in the Middlle East dates back to the early nineties, soon after the first Gulf War. Starting with the Madrid Conference, the senior Bush administration pushed hard for, and ultimately realized the Madrid Conference, which subsequently led to Oslo Accords in 1993, signed by the then Israeli PM Rabin and PLO leader Arafat. That was the beginning of what I call a "softer" approach to crisis resolution, the first time the US unofficially recognized the "two state solution" as a key to success in building peace in the region.

What 9/11 did, instead, was that it radicalized the Americans. And this radicalization, unfortunately, compelled them to temporarily abandone the "softer" approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, vis-a-vis the Palestinian perspective. Now, it is the agonizing experience in Iraq that is making them rethink their post 9/11 policies, and perhaps will make them re-embrace the "soft" approach.

The impeccable need to approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the pro-Israeli, militaristic, Rightist lens was always advocated by those on the Left, since long before even the Madrid Conference. In this particular issue, the Left was on the side of humanity, the truth, therefore, it is now beginning to show signs of prevailing. The Rightist theory of "tyranny-against-tyranny" has no place in modern times, and deespite some back and forth, the ultimately win will be bestowed on those who are on the side of humanity.

Not only in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but my observation is that even on other social issues, the society in its entirety moving towards the current Left is inevitable. The current Rightists will try -- and they may even seem to succeed at times -- in putting breaks (or sometimes even pull it backwards) on this movement towards the current Left, but the reality is that the truth sides with the current Left, the ultimate victory for which is unquestionable in my opinion.

This is not to say that I envision the world in unison with the Left in the future. Differences, and the fierce competition within, which, goes without saying that it's natural, will remain. But the focus, issues, shapes, and forms would have changed. Sooner or later, the current Left would have won over the current Right, but a new Left and a new Right would have been created.

My five bucks!
Buy me some beers too, Iso! :)

Poonte it was not USA but England that had a crucial role in creation of Palestine. But this issue dates back to the biblical times between Judea and Samarrrea. This is not something that just evolved in the last century.
The Zionist movement as we know it today did not even come about till the mid 20th century. And it originated from EUROPE and NOT ISRAEL(or Palestine as it was called then). The population of Palestine shot up from 403,000 to 68300 by the end of 1st world war. and most of them were members of Zionist movement from Europe.

I see a parrallel between Tibet and China in a similar pattern. They way China declared Tibet part of China in the 50's.

BRC,

You are right. That is why I said the conflict took a turn for the worse after the creation of Israel, which implies that the conflict existed since long before 1947. UK played a key role until then, and the US took over after.

Poonte - That five bucks was surely worth a hundred! :)

A couple of questions on my mind: In spite of a variety of US strategies and tactics over the years, there still isn't much of a Palestinian state, so what exactly is it going to take to get one? America's role cannot be understated but is it sometimes exaggerated? While few will disagree that there can be any sort of lasting peace in Palestine without US involvement, can US involvement really be affective when the parties to the conflict themselves are so polarized?

My own take is the problem has spanned many generations and with so much bitterness, any solution that comes out of a future Oslo, Madrid, Mitchell plan, Baker plan etc, might also take generations to succeed. That doesn't mean the world shouldn't try, it should, but it seems baby steps are the way forward before any giant leaps can be taken. To that affect, blessed are the peacemakers - Americans (left or right), Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs. I am for trying anything reasonable that stands a chance of fixing the problem.

lfc123, it was hard to tell you were being sarcastic, but it turned out to be quite amusing that you were :)

Here is Mr Carter with Charlie Rose answering questions about the book and the Middle East. Thought some of you might find this interesting.

I havn't have the time to read Carter's book, neither have I done an elaborate study of his stance on the Middle East crisis. Allow me to view his interview with Charlie Rose, and I will get back to you shortly, El Capitan!

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
this guy gives you a pretty good synapsis of that happened.

what the Israelis did to Palestinians in the 40's and 50's...the palestinians are returing the favor. But in Palestine there are a lotta factions in play too. There is Hamas and Fatah are the major players. Fatah being pro Sunni, pro Arafat and the Hamas are fully funded by the Shia's(Iran).

Looking at the picture of middle east at the moment. Iran is posed to come up as a major palyer pretty soon. I dunno if fpeople are aware of this but they got people creating havoc in their former enemy country IRAQ(which is now run by the Shia majority gov). Then they've got the Hazbullah in Lebanon firing rockets at Isreal and trying to win the politiccal war in Lebanon. Then the Hamas in Palestine(they hold the majority in there as well), who are in power struggle with Fatah(former Arafat supporters).
to top it all of they have major charities that are helping various aspects of live in all of those countries. From Education, food, water, medical etc etc. And just Imagine what will happen if they have Nuclear cpabilitiess ? he he

Arrrrrrrrrgh! Watching nearly an hour long interview is not on my agenda today! But I did watch the snippets presented early on. Both Carter and Perez were on the dot, I think. More on this later when I have had the time to review the entire show.

El Capitan, on your comments above:

I don't think the US' role in the Middle Eastern peace process is exagerated at all. As the only global Super Power, with its kinship to Israel beyond anyone's wildest dreams, coupled with the fact that it still enjoys strong relationship with several Arab states that matter (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, in particular), I believe US is in a profoundly unique position to shape the future of peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The problem thus far, however, has been with the US' will, rather than it's ability. US' will to adopt a certain approach to bringing lasting peace in the region has been distorted by it's unwillingness to listen and act upon the suggestions from the Left. Hardline, militaristic approach is still the back bone of US's policies, and often they try to get away with it by labeling the Left "weak," with a great degree of success, I am afraid. Weakness, however, they do not realize, stems from the very radicalism they see as strentgh. If the US admisnistrations were to abandone radicalism, and seek to establish meaningful but seemingly rocky relationships with it's enemies based on dialogue and eagerness to better understand the latter, and were to balance their relationship with Israel with that of Palestinians, I don't think a permanent peace in the Middle East is far fetched.

Of course, one need not act upon instances of terrorism with such flexibility that the perpetrators get away with complete impunity. Some degree of harshness is required, but that harshness need not necessarily mean resorting to collective punishment. Pinpoint the perpetrators, and crush them! I am all for it. But do undertsnad that one way of crushing the terrorists is to turn their own people against them. Collective punishment only radicalizes the entire society, which, in turn, fuels the insurgency further. hence the perpetual failure, despite the eargernbess to see thourgh a permanent peace.

You are right that it will probably take anormous amount of patience, given the conflict is deep rooted in centuries of rivalry between the Jews and the Arabs. However, I choose to remain optimistic. This is because I see the "soft approach" of the Left slowly but surely gaining strength within the American public; and sooner or later, any US administration would have no choice but to succumb to the ultimate truth and humanity, to which the Left is currently beholden.

If I or anyone else had a magic formula to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, he or she would make a far better candidate for Nobel Peace Prize than our own Girija Prasad Koirala (pun intended!). Nevertheless, having closely studied the Middle East during my undergraduate years, I am of the opinion that if the US was to adopt a "softer" approach, the world would have gone a long, long way towards a lasting peace in the region.

Time and tide are against radicalism, be that of the US or the Islamic Fundamentalists. Even Hamas has realized -- though they seem not too fond of making it known -- that their radicalism has failed themselves and their people. Israel has gone through similar realization. Now it is upto the US to accept the reality, and make constructive dialogue possible between themselves and their enemies. The benefits of a dialogue and sincere attempts to understand the other side -- with strength -- far outweighs the perceived benefits of no dialogue, with the sole reliance on "strength".

The real strength, once again, does not come from militaristic radicalism. The real strength is in the ability to envision permanent peace, through whatever means.

मानवता त सत्यतामा आधारित धैर्यपूर्ण साहस नै सबैभन्दा ठुलो बल हो।